9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 691X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Hindi feature films except that the assessee itself has applied markup of 15% in respect of transfer of television right - more markup in the case of transfer of television software is justified as compared to transfer of exhibition rights of Hindi feature films – appeal decided in favour of revenue. - ITA No.6467/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 12-7-2013 - Shri G. D. Agrawal And Shri Chandra Mohan Garg,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Tarun Seem, Sr.DR. For the Respondent : Shri J.J. Malhotra, CA. ORDER Per G. D. Agrawal, VP : This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-XX, New Delhi dated 26th October, 2012 for the AY 2003-04. 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds:- "On the facts and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s similar in nature and, therefore, the assessee was supposed to determine their price by the similar mark up. That when in respect of export of television software the assessee determined the export price by applying the markup of 15% over the cost, there was no justification for applying the markup of 10% on the export of exhibition rights of Hindi feature films. He, therefore, submitted that the order of learned CIT(A) should be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee stated that there were some fundamental difference between the television software and the exhibition rights of Hindi feature films. He stated that most of the television programs were produced by the assessee on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... produced by it whereas it was charging 10% markup on the feature film rights sold to its AE. There are substantial differences in the terms of sales of these two rights. In the case of television program rights produced by the appellant it has full ownership on the broadcasting rights. It can alter the program and alter the terms and condition of the sale. Whereas the feature film rights are purchase from the third parties and the appellant owns a limited rights in terms of the number of exhibitions (broadcasting) and for a limited period of time. The appellant did not have the indefinite or unlimited right on the broadcasting of feature film produced by a third party. Therefore, the markup that the appellant had charged flows from the rig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
